* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its > >>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING. > > > >> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs WARNING or > >> ERROR was fine. If others want this changed, please reply. > > > > The previous argument about it was "if you bothered to specify FREEZE, > > you probably really want/need that behavior". So I can definitely see > > Andres' point. Perhaps WARNING would be a suitable compromise? > > I'll vote for ERROR. I don't see why this sound be a best-effort thing.
Yeah, I tend to agree. In part, I think having it error when the
conditions aren't met would actually reduce the chances of having this
'feature' end up as the default in some ORM somewhere...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
